Mobile Phones Locked By DMCA 255
wellington map writes "A mobile phone company is arguing that companies that unlock their handsets violate the DMCA. They argue that the software on the phone is a copyrighted work, and the unlocker is breaking DRM in a way that violates the statutory prohibition on circumvention. A similar claim by Lexmark, which tried to apply it to people who refilled printer cartridges, has recently been rejected by the courts." From the Wired article: "The financial motive behind this claim is obvious. Companies have been using the razor blade business model to guarantee a steady stream of revenue ever since, well, the razor blade. Cell phone companies sell you a phone at a discount, and then make up the difference by requiring you to sign a multi-year contract promising to pay monthly fees for mobile phone service or to fork over a hefty termination penalty if you break the deal. But many customers, particularly those who travel internationally, want more choice."
I'm screwed then (Score:4, Interesting)
So I gues that makes thos of us who hack [nuclearelephant.com] mobile [nuclearelephant.com] phones [nuclearelephant.com] terrorists or something?
I would think that if you follow this logic, Verizon crippling their handsets so that customers can't access their own copyrighted works (pictures they've taken and messages they've received) without paying $0.25 is also a terrorist. I can live with that.
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:5, Interesting)
And no one is suggesting that if I 'unlock' my phone to use Provider B at some point, that I stop paying Provider A as my contract requires.
If I have finished my service contract, why shouldn't I be able to use the phone on a different network if I so desire? Do the companies offer 'unlocking' services at the end of contract? (by which time they have been 'paid' for the 'cheap' phone)
So it's just another tactic to prevent free market forces by using the DMCA, yes it's a Bad Thing(TM). Hopefully with exposure and some intelligent court rulings this too shall pass.
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:3, Interesting)
So, unless I do a bunch of secret-squirrel digging/haxoring, I have a dead-end product.
Locking Phones is Illegal... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Another BoingBoing story... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, yes. I have yet to see a "good" occurrence of that four-letter word (acronym). At best, ironic or just-desserts, but never actually "good".
What's the problem? If you want to pay less for a locked in phone thats your buisness.
You miss the point - Yes, the phone comes cheap as part of signing a 2-year contract (usually), but after that?
This doesn't involve people trying to get out of their contracts. Just people trying to keep using their phone once they have satisfied whatever contractual obligations exist that might justify calling it "not theirs".
When every object we posess contains some amount of copyrighted material, will companies successfully argue that we don't actually "own" anything? "Sorry, that pointy stick contains DNA for which Monsanto owns the copyright. Using it to defend yourself against a non-Monsanto-approved bear violates the DMCA".
Re:Another BoingBoing story... (Score:2, Interesting)
But the court upheld Lexmark in the toner suit (EULA issue), where Lexmark provides a discount to people who bought the "cheaper" box on condition of returning it back only to Lexmark for recycling. Due consideration, in the court's opinion, was the cheaper price.
Since the phones are subsidized by the service providers I can easily see a court siding with them, also due to the 'cheaper price' consideration. The court would see the cheaper price as due consideration.
Easy! (Score:5, Interesting)
So unlock them in a country that doesn't have the DMCA. No problem.
Re:Another BoingBoing story... (Score:4, Interesting)
By the way, and I'm not saying this to be mean or anything because I do enjoy reading your opinions here but... do you live here? I almost always see your comments as FP (or first +0 or better comment) or damn near it.
A year late... (Score:1, Interesting)
I came up with [slashdot.org] this idea about 2 years ago. Looks like they followed suit...
(Still not logged in because slashdot still sucks)
Re:Another BoingBoing story... (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:3, Interesting)
The subsidized cell phone is a win/win for the cell phone service provider and the manufacturer. The provider locks you into a contract (thereby avoiding competition based on quality of service) and the manufacturer need not worry about reducing costs. All subsidies eliminate competition in some fashion. It does not benefit you the consumer.
No man, THIS is the reason.... (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Sign up for cell phone service with the provider you want to stick with.
2) For your free (or super-discounted) phone, get the most expensive one they have.
3) Unlock that phone.
4) Sell it on eBay as an unlocked phone for possibly more than retail price.
5) PROFIT!!
6) Buy the unlocked phone you really want from an online retailer.
See, instead of your provider giving you some phone you don't want, they gave you its value in $$ which you applied to a phone you really wanted. That's what I did with T-mobile, and it got me $140 off a $230 phone I wanted.
Hooray!
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:3, Interesting)
The solution I see would be to mandate that any copyrighted part of a non-copyrighted object be made removable. If I don't use the copyrighted part, then no problem, correct?
Something to consider (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmm.
Re:Another BoingBoing story... (Score:2, Interesting)